Badawy, B

Baker, DF

Basu, S

Belikov, D

Bergamaschi, P

Bousquet, P

Broquet, G

Butler, T

Canadell, JG

Chen, J

Chevallier, F

Ciais, P

Collatz, JG

Denning, S

Engelen, R

Enting, IG

Fischer, ML

Fraser, A

Gerbig, C

Gloor, M

Heimann, M

Houweling, S

Jacobson, AR

Jones, DBA

Kaminski, T

Kasibhatla, PS

Khalil, A

Krakauer, NY

Krol, M

Maki, T

Maksyutov, S

Manning, A

Meesters, A

Miller, JB

Palmer, PI

Patra, P

Peters, W

Peylin, P

Poussi, Z

Prather, MJ

Randerson, JT

Röckmann, T

Rödenbeck, C

Sarmiento, JL

Schimel, DS

Scholze, M

Schuh, A

Suntharalingam, P

Takahashi, T

Turnbull, J

Vermeulen, A

Yurganov, L

eScholarship - University of California

UC IrvineUC Irvine Previously Published WorksTitleIconic CO2 time series at riskPermalinkhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/6p74d7kgJournalScience, 337(6098)ISSN0036-8075AuthorsHouweling, SBadawy, BBaker, DFet al.Publication Date2012-08-31DOI10.1126/science.337.6098.1038-b Peer reviewedeScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital LibraryUniversity of California31 AUGUST 2012    VOL 337    SCIENCE    www.sciencemag.org 1038LETTERSedited by Jennifer Sills1043Common but differentiatedIBI Prize Essay1056COMMENTARYLETTERS  I  BOOKS  I  POLICY FORUM  I  EDUCATION FORUM  I  PERSPECTIVESCREDIT: LEAH GERBER/ ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITYIconic CO2 Time Series at RiskTHE STEADY RISE IN ATMOSPHERIC LONG-lived greenhouse gas concentrations is the main driver of contemporary climate change. The Mauna Loa CO2 time series (1, 2), started by C. D. Keeling in 1958 and maintained today by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) of NOAA, is iconic evidence of the effect of human-caused fossil fuel and land-use change emis-sions on the atmospheric increase of CO2. The continuity of such records depends criti-cally on having stable funding, which is chal-lenging to maintain in the context of  3- to 4-year research grant funding cycles (3), and is currently threatened by the fi nancial crisis.The ESRL Global Monitoring Division maintains a network of about 100 surface and aircraft sites worldwide at which whole air samples are collected approximately every week for analysis of CO2, CH4, CO, halocar-bons, and many other chemical species (4). This is complemented by high-frequency measurements at the Mauna Loa, Barrow, American Samoa, and South Pole obser-vatories, and about 10 North American tall towers. The success of the NOAA program has inspired similar efforts in Europe (5), China (6), India (7), and Brazil (8), with the United Nations World Meteorological Orga-nization providing guidance and precision requirements through the Global Atmosphere Watch program (9), but no funding.The data collected by NOAA and its worldwide partners have been used not only to demonstrate the unassailable rise of atmo-spheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but also to infer the magnitudes, locations, and times of surface-atmosphere exchange of those gases based on small concentration gradients between sites (10). Important fi nd-ings from analysis of these records include the detection of a signifi cant terrestrial car-bon sink at northern mid-latitudes (11) and subsequent research aimed at identifying the mechanisms by which that sink must operate. Long-term, high-quality, atmospheric mea-surements are crucial for quantifying trends in greenhouse gas fl uxes and attributing them to fossil fuel emissions, changes in land-use and management, or the response of natural AT THE RECENT INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION’S ANNUAL meeting in Panama, South Korean offi cials announced their plan to initiate a “scientifi c whaling” program (1). This announcement came as a surprise given the general sentiment that the global demand for whale meat is declining. After weeks of international outcry, on 17 July, South Korea reversed their decision to hunt whales for research, but the issue is not dead (2).South Korea claimed that the goal of the scientifi c whaling pro-gram is to study the types and amounts of fi sh whales eat, given confl ict with fi sher-ies.  Yet, it is well established in the scien-tifi c literature that there are many ways to study whale diet without killing them (3).Decades of fruitless negotiation between pro- and anti-whaling nations suggests a broken system, wrought with loopholes that allow unsustainable whal-ing to continue. Within this broken system, there is no incentive to reduce whaling, as the recent announcement by South Korea shows. Whaling groups are unwilling to compromise by allowing a sustainable harvest of whales, so unsustainable (scientifi c) whaling continues.  To ensure a future of both whales and whalers, we must har-ness the passion and value that people place on living whales, with-out telling people what to do or force one set of values on others. We need novel, out-of-the-box approaches to effective management and conservation of whales. We must compromise to ensure reduc-tions in whales being killed, better oversight of countries that har-vest them, and limited whaling that does not threaten the persis-tence of whales.  For those who believe that whaling is unethical, I challenge you to put forward alternative ideas to a global moratorium that fosters the “loophole” of scientifi c whaling. With new plans to develop scientifi c whaling programs (4), the current global moratorium is clearly bro-ken. Scientists, conservation advocates, resource managers, and the public must work together to develop new approaches to ensure the persistence of whales in our oceans.LEAH R. GERBERFaculty of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Sciences, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA. E-mail: leah.gerber@asu.eduReferences 1.  Associated Press, The New York Times, 6 July 2012, p. A7 (www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/europe/south-korea-whaling-plan-criticized.html). 2.  S. Herman, Voice of America, 24 July 2012 (www.voanews.com/content/south-korea-still-considering-resumption-of-whaling/1444081.html). 3.  L. R. Gerber, L. Morissette, K. Kaschner, D. Pauly, Science 323, 880 (2009). 4.  R. Black, BBC News, 5 July 2012 (www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18719512).The Scientifi c Whaling LoopholePublished by AAAS on August 17, 2015www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from  on August 17, 2015www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from  on August 17, 2015www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from www.sciencemag.org    SCIENCE    VOL 337    31 AUGUST 2012 1039LETTERSMany scien sts and engineers contribute valuable me away from the established career paths ofresearch, teaching, and publishing to foster ac vi esand develop programs that both address key scienceques ons and build important societal links. AAASseeks to recognize an individual or a limited numberof individuals working together in the scien c orengineering community for making an outstandingcontribu on to furthering science diplomacy.The recipient receives US $5,000 award, acommemora ve plaque, complimentary registra on,and reimbursement for reasonable travel and hotelexpenses.The award is open to all regardless of na onality orci zenship. Nominees must be living at the  me oftheir nomina on. Please visit h p://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/awards/int/ for more informa on andnomina on instruc ons.All materials must bereceived by September 1.AAAS Award for Science DiplomacyLIFE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGIESProteomicsProduced by the Science/AAAS Custom Publishing OfficePanning theProteomefor BiomarkerGoldIn This IssueTargeted proteomics is homing in on promising biomarkersto help screen for cancer and guide patient treatment, butmuch work still needs to be done to validate these biomark-ers and develop technology capable of bringing them tothe clinic.See full story on page 1120.Upcoming FeaturesGenomics: Epigenetics/EpigenomicsOctober 26Tissue Engineering: 3-D/ScaffoldingDecember 7ConnectomeJanuary 18land and ocean ecosystems to climate change and elevated CO2 concentrations. Greenhouse gas measurements along tall towers in the interior continents allow quanti-fi cation of regional sources and sinks, which has a very high relevance for measuring the effectiveness of climate policy. NOAA ESRL provides measurements that are critical for the U.S. national security in that they pro-vide independent verifi cation and early warn-ing of changing greenhouse gas emissions from countries involved in efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases.Dedicated carbon-observing satellites such as GOSAT and OCO-2 are needed to fill in the missing geographical informa-tion required for verifi cation of carbon fl ux mitigation efforts. However, satellite retriev-als do not yet provide suffi cient information to deliver new constraints on surface fl uxes, although quick progress is being made in this direction. In situ observations are crucial for anchoring space-borne measurements, for detecting potential biases of remote sens-ing techniques, and for providing continuity given the fi nite lifetime of satellites.  Despite the growing importance of green-house gas observations to humanity, sub-stantial budget cuts at NOAA have resulted in curtailment of our ability to observe and understand changes to the global car-bon cycle. Already, a dozen surface fl ask-sampling sites have been removed from NOAA’s operational network and aircraft pro-fi ling sites have been eliminated and reduced in frequency at the remaining NOAA sites. The planned growth in the tall tower program has stopped, and plans for closing some tow-ers are being developed. The U.S. budget pro-cess in this election year, with the added risk of mandatory across-the-board cuts due to the 2011 Budget Control Act, foretells more bleak news for greenhouse gas monitoring at NOAA and could cause further retreat from the goal of recording ongoing changes in atmospheric composition. As scientists, we believe that preserving the continuity of these vital time series must remain a priority for U.S. carbon cycle research. SANDER HOUWELING,1,2* BAKR BADAWY,3 DAVID F. BAKER,4 SOURISH BASU,1,2 DMITRY BELIKOV,5 PETER BERGAMASCHI,6 PHILIPPE BOUSQUET,7 GREGOIRE BROQUET,7 TIM BUTLER,8 JOSEP G. CANADELL,9 JING CHEN,10 FREDERIC CHEVALLIER,7 PHILIPPE CIAIS,7 G. JAMES COLLATZ,11 SCOTT DENNING,4 RICHARD ENGELEN,12 IAN G. ENTING,13 MARC L. FISCHER,14 ANNEMARIE FRASER,15 CHRISTOPH GERBIG,3 MANUEL GLOOR,16 ANDREW R. JACOBSON,17,18 DYLAN B. A. JONES,10 MARTIN HEIMANN,3 ASLAM KHALIL,19 THOMAS KAMINSKI,20 PRASAD S. KASIBHATLA,21 NIR Y. KRAKAUER,22 MAARTEN KROL,1,2,23 TAKASHI MAKI,24 SHAMIL MAKSYUTOV,5 ANDREW MANNING,25 ANTOON MEESTERS,26 JOHN B. MILLER,17,18 PAUL I. PALMER,15 PRABIR PATRA,27 WOUTER PETERS,23 PHILIPPE PEYLIN,7 ZEGBEU POUSSI,28 MICHAEL J. PRATHER,29 JAMES T. RANDERSON,29 THOMAS RÖCKMANN,2 CHRISTIAN RÖDENBECK,3 JORGE L. SARMIENTO,30 DAVID S. SCHIMEL,31 MARKO SCHOLZE,32 ANDREW SCHUH,4 PARV SUNTHARALINGAM,25 TARO TAKAHASHI,33 JOCELYN TURNBULL,34 LEONID YURGANOV,35 ALEX VERMEULEN361SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, 3584 CA, Utrecht, Netherlands. 2Institute for Marine and Atmo-spheric Research Utrecht, 3584 CC Utrecht, Netherlands. 3Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry, 07745, Jena, Germany. 4Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmo-sphere, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523–1375, USA. 5National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, 305-8506, Japan. 6European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy. 7Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, Unité mixte CEA, UVSQ, CNRS, 91191, Gif-sur-Yvette, France. 8Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, 14467, Potsdam, Germany. Published by AAAS31 AUGUST 2012    VOL 337    SCIENCE    www.sciencemag.org 1040LETTERS9Global Carbon Project, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. 10University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A7, Canada. 11NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Green-belt, MD 20771, USA. 12European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Shinfi eld Park, Reading, RG2 9AX, UK. 13ARC Centre of Excellence in the Mathematics and Statis-tics of Complex Systems, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. 14Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Washington, DC 20024, USA. 15University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3JW, UK. 16Earth and Biosphere Institute, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. 17Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmen-tal Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA. 18NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO 80305, USA. 19Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207, USA. 20FastOpt, 22767 Hamburg, Germany. 21Nich-olas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham NC 27708, USA. 22Department of Civil Engineering, City College of New York, New York, NY 10031, USA. 23Meteorol-ogy and Air Quality, Wageningen University and Research Center, 6708 PB Wageningen, Netherlands. 24Environ-mental and Applied Meteorology Research Department, Meteorol ogical Research Institute, Tskuba, Japan. 25Univer-sity of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. 26Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Nether-lands. 27Research Institute for Global Change, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, 236-0001, Japan. 28ClimMod, 91401 Orsay, France. 29Univer-sity of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. 30Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. 31National Ecological Observatory Inc., Boulder, CO 80301, USA. 32Bristol Univer-sity, Clifton, BS8 1RJ, UK. 33Lamont-Doherty Earth Obser-vatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964–8000, USA. 34National Isotope Centre, GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand. 35University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA. 36Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland, 1755 ZG Petten, Netherlands. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: s.houweling@sron.nlReferences and Notes 1.  Scripps CO2 Program (http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu).   2.   ESRL Global Monitoring Division, Recent Mauna Loa CO2 (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends). 3.  C. D. Keeling, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 23, 25 (1998). 4.  ESRL Global Monitoring Division, GMD Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases Group (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg). 5.  Integrated Carbon Observing System (www.icos-infrastructure.eu). 6.  China Meteorological Association (www.cngaw-ghgs.org)[in Chinese]. 7.  W. A. Brand, Ed., World Meteorological Organization, Global Atmosphere Watch, GAW Report No. 194, WMO/TD-No. 1553 (2011); www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/documents/GAW_194_WMO_TD_1553_web.pdf. 8.  L. Gatti et al., Tellus Ser. B 62, 581 (2010). 9.  WMO Global Atmosphere Watch, World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/gaw_home_en.html). 10.  K. R. Gurney et al., Nature 415, 626 (2002). 11.  P. P. Tans et al., Science 247, 1431 (1990). 12.  The authors collaborate in the international transport model intercomparison project, TRANSCOM.Decoding CryptosystemsR. STONE’S NEWS FOCUS STORY ABOUT PAN Jianwei’s marvelous quantum optics experi-ments (“Entangled secret messages from space,” 29 June, p. 1632) propagates some unfortunately common misconceptions about the uses of quantum key distribution (QKD) technology, especially its integration into a complete cryptosystem.The confusion arises in the distinction between a cryptographic key and a com-munication session encrypted via the key. QKD does not carry or encrypt the message directly. Instead, QKD uses a classical com-munication authentication mechanism, quan-tum eavesdropping detection, and a healthy dose of statistics, as well as both quantum and classical randomness, to generate a random bit string that is known to be secret and shared only between two parties. This random bit string is then used as the encryption key for a standard, classical encryption system.The ultimate success of the cryptosystem in protecting sensitive data depends on several factors. One such factor is the QKD imple-mentation itself; no general attack against QKD is known, but various attacks have been proposed and even implemented against the photon generators, detectors, and electrome-chanical subsystems. Implementers respond by fi xing problems in the usual thrust-and-parry of security systems implementation.The security of the data depends on the strength of the classical encryption. The ideal use of the key would be to use it once and discard, as in a one-time pad (OTP), but cur-rent QKD key generation rates are far below desired classical communication rates, lead-ing implementers to use the key for encryp-tion schemes, such as Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), which encrypt many data bits with the use of fewer key bits. If used properly, OTP is perfectly secure, whereas AES could be broken by trying all possible keys, a theoretically possible but computa-tionally impractical task.Rather than fl at statements that communi-cation using QKD is totally unbreakable, it is more correct to say that it presents a different attack surface.RODNEY VAN METERFaculty of Environment and Information Studies, Keio Uni-versity, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-0882, Japan. E-mail: rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jpCORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONSNews Focus: “Where are the missing baryons?” by Y. Bhat-tacharjee (1 June, p. 1093). Oxygen VI is oxygen stripped of fi ve electrons, not six, and Neon VIII is neon stripped of seven electrons, not eight.This Week in Science: “Tic TOC1 plant clock” (6 April, p. 11). The editors note that the title of this summary was not intended to convey a connection between TOC1 and the plant gene Tic.Reports: “The B73 maize genome: Complexity, diversity, and dynamics” by P. S. Schnable et al. (20 November 2009, p. 1112). Reference 27 should be C. Liang, L. Mao, D. Ware, L. Stein, Genome Res. 19, 1912 (2009). The reference has been corrected in the HTML version online.TECHNICAL COMMENT ABSTRACTSComment on “Intensifying Weathering and Land Use in Iron Age Central Africa”K. Neumann, M. K. H. Eggert, R. Oslisly, B. Clist, T. Denham, P. de Maret, S. Ozainne, E. Hildebrand, K. Bostoen, U. Salzmann, D. Schwartz, B. Eichhorn, B. Tchiengué, A. HöhnBayon et al. (Reports, 9 March 2012, p. 1219) inter-preted unusually high aluminum-potassium ratio values in an Atlantic sediment core as indicating anthropogenic deforestation around 2500 years before the present (B.P.). We argue that there is no terrestrial evidence for forest destruction by humans and that the third millen-nium B.P. rainforest crisis can be clearly attributed mostly to climatic change.Full text at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/337/ 6098/1040-cComment on “Intensifying Weathering and Land Use in Iron Age Central Africa”Jean Maley, Pierre Giresse, Charles Doumenge, Charly FavierBayon et al. (Reports, 9 March 2012, p. 1219) claim that the “rainforest crisis” in Central Africa centered around 2500 years before the present “was not trig-gered by natural climatic factors” and that it was caused by widespread deforestation resulting from the arrival of the Bantu colonists. However, there is a consensus among palaeoecologists that this landscape change and the related physical erosion it caused was due mainly to a shift to more seasonal rainfall regime.Full text at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/337/ 6098/1040-dResponse to Comments on “Intensifying Weathering and Land Use in Iron Age Central Africa”Germain Bayon, Bernard Dennielou, Joël Etoubleau, Emmanuel Ponzevera, Samuel Toucanne, Sylvain BermellNeumann et al. argue that terrestrial evidence does not support our interpretation of large-scale human land use in Central Africa about 2500 years ago and that climate was the main driver of the rainforest crisis at that time, and Maley et al. raise a number of concerns about our interpretation of data from chemical weather-ing proxies. Taking into account existing palaeoclimatic data and clarifying some misconceptions, we reassert that humans must also have contributed fundamentally to this large vegetation change.Full text at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/337/ 6098/1040-eLetters to the EditorLetters (~300 words) discuss material published in Science in the past 3 months or matters of general interest. Letters are not acknowledged upon receipt. Whether published in full or in part, Letters are subject to editing for clarity and space. Letters submitted, published, or posted elsewhere, in print or online, will be disqualifi ed. To submit a Letter, go to www.submit2science.org.Published by AAAS

English

Iconic CO2 time series at risk

Iconic CO2 time series at risk

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eScholarship - University of California